The litter of cigarette butts in the crevices of sidewalks is a common site at nearly every college campus. Most people are unperturbed by the souls cowering on the doorsteps of public buildings, indulging in cylindrically rolled tobacco leaves. We can hardly be surprised by the significant number of smokers on campus when one out of five college students admits to smoking cigarettes regularly, according to a 2008 report by the American Lung Association.Despite all this, a new smoke-free campus initiative sets out to eradicate the ever prevalent cigarette smoker from college environments, citing the general public's health as its main motivation for the movement.

While the intent of the initiative is commendable, the idea of completely prohibiting smoking completely on a college campus is questionable, given the impracticality and unenforceability of the resolution. Rather, schools should adopt reasonable smoking policies that, while restricting how close one can smoke near a building, are conscious that they cannot confine someone's choice to smoke.

According to the American Nonsmokers' Right Foundation, the smoke-free campus initiative calls for a ban on smoking on school premises and in all residential housing buildings and facilities. The organization currently lists 466 schools as being completely smoke-free, including Washington University in St. Louis, Stanford University Medical School and Towson University.

One of the schools currently in the process of becoming smoke-free is the University of Michigan, whose ban will go into effect starting July 1. All on-campus buildings, athletic facilities and parking lots are under the jurisdiction of the smoking ban. Although the committee proposed the initiative in 2009, the proposal hasn't come to fruition until now. The university's 40,000 students have been left to wonder how the administration will implement and enforce the ban.

The impracticality of the ban is articulated in the subsequent questions that arise. At the most fundamental level, which pathways are prohibited from smoking and which aren't? What are the consequences of refusing to obey the restrictions? How is the administration planning on accounting for each and every smoker of the more than 40,000 person student body?

Whether the restrictions will be effectively enforced at all should be a prime concern for administrators of these schools and demonstrates the futility of the ban itself. Oklahoma State University has been a smoke-free campus since July 1, 2008. Striving to be one of "America's Healthiest Campuses," Oklahoma has been awarded numerous certificates by the BACCHUS Network, a health education organization, for their dedication in maintaining a smoke-free campus. However, assuming the identity of a smoke-free campus and actually implementing the changes are two very different ideas.

A recent article, written in July 2010 in the university's newspaper, the Oklahoma State University Ledger, questions the integrity of the college's commitment to being a tobacco-free campus. The potentially lax enforcement of the policy undermines the purpose and goal of the ban: to reduce secondhand smoke.

Though some impetus for the initiative surely lies surely with the annoying smell of cigarette smoke, the greater rationale for the ban, according to various university administrations behind the movement, is to reduce secondhand smoke. A study of 4,223 college students from 10 North Carolina universities conducted by Wake Forest University School of Medicine found that 83 percent said they had been exposed to secondhand smoke at least once in the past seven days. The dangers of secondhand smoke are most clearly seen by the 3,000 deaths that the Centers for Disease Control reported were caused by inhaling "passive smoke."

But will the all-out ban on smoking actually prevent secondhand smoke when it's unenforceable? While the ANRF has listed these schools as being smoke-free, they have not provided any information on the current smoking rates at the schools or how strictly the policies are being followed.

Moreover, do any of these universities even have the right to prohibit adults from smoking in the open air when they are the appropriate amount of feet away from school buildings? Students and faculty can reserve the right to smoke cigarettes within the reasonable distance restrictions. At the City University of New York, a completely smoke-free school, the administration hopes that by disallowing smoking, students will be encouraged to abandon the habit. But, restricting a substance that is available for legal purchase by the majority of the student body because of its negative health consequences is unduly abusive of the school's administrative powers. These individuals are undoubtedly aware of the effects of smoking tobacco and forcing them to adopt healthier lifestyles is absurd.

At CUNY and University of Michigan, a large reason for the initiative is a concern for the well-being of those around the smokers. Secondhand smoke is a very real and pertinent problem that needs to be addressed, but through means that will actually reduce passive smoke. Implementing a policy similar to Brandeis' of mandating individuals to smoke a certain distance from campus buildings provides a realistic compromise. Schools can fulfill their responsibility in creating healthy environments by encouraging students to give up the habit through the same educational programs proposed through the initiatives. The decision to smoke should remain in the students' and faculty's hands.